Talk:Sheffield Town Hall

Satellite photos etc.
As doubt has been expressed regarding links to WIKIMAPIA satellite photos and as I doubt many users will pay attention to the top right hand corner links generated by the coord dms option, I've included an external link (in addition to coord dms). Any comments?

Do you think this is a good option to implement for the Sheffield sub items in general?

This is the code I used:-

_________________________ Winter Gardens

location (tools.wikipedia.de)]
 * [http://tools.wikimedia.de/~magnus/geo/geohack.php?params=53.379849_N_1.467997_W_scale:1000 Satellite photo/map options for this

53.37985°N, -1.468°W

__________________________

Town Hall, Peace Gardens

(tools.wikipedia.de)]
 * [http://tools.wikimedia.de/~magnus/geo/geohack.php?params=53.379994_N_1.469446_W_scale:1000 Satellite photo/map options

53.37999°N, -1.46945°W

cheers, Wikityke 15:40, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Coordinates
Once again the format of the coordinates are being changed without any explanation as to why. Could I ask before further changes are made that this is discussed. What advantage does Pigsonthewing feel the infobox and his microformats offers over coor title d to merit these changes? I note this same change has been made to a number of articles. Captain Scarlet and the Mysterons 09:46, 13 May 2007 (UTC)


 * It is probably worth mentioning that the comments above by Captain scarlet are simply a copy of mine at Talk:Tinsley Viaduct that have been reworded. Adambro 10:11, 13 May 2007 (UTC)


 * My name, as I have told you previously, is Andy Mabbett. I changed the coordinates to a version which is better, for the same reasons I gave the last time we discussed this. Perhaps you might now outline what benefits you think coor title d has over coord? Or will you ignore this question, as you have done others on the matter? Andy Mabbett 20:11, 13 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Sorry user:Pigsonthewing, I disagree with you entirely, again and always concerning microformats. You have made no changes to enhance this article. The coordinates need not be repeated. Once again you are changing the format of the coordinates without any explanation as to why. Could I ask before further changes are made that this is discussed. What advantage do you feel the infobox and its microformats offer over coor title d to merit these changes? I note this same change has been made to a number of articles with no reasons given other than a reasonless edit sumary. Captain Scarlet and the Mysterons 21:38, 13 May 2007 (UTC)


 * "Or will you ignore this question" - Apparently, yes. Can you instead say why you "disagree entirely, again and always concerning microformats"? Andy Mabbett 21:41, 13 May 2007 (UTC)


 * You are reverting to an old template that is pretty much deprecated, and appears to be being phased out in general. Andy is making good faith edits to more modern templates.  Perhaps you'd like to explain what advantage you think the old templates have over their replacements?  Joe D (t) 21:45, 13 May 2007 (UTC)


 * "reverting " - and is doing likewise on Tinsley Viaduct and Meersbrook. This comment may also be pertinent. Andy Mabbett 22:07, 13 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Pigsonthewing, the comment by Captain scarlet which you cited is not pertinent. All he appears to be doing is stating his dislike of microformats, just as he is doing here.   L.J.Skinner wot 23:30, 13 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Which therefore makes it extremely pertinent. My name remains, Andy Mabbett 23:57, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

From WP:CON: "Silence equals consent" is the ultimate measure of consensus — somebody makes an edit and nobody objects or changes it.  So, the coor title d had been in, and a concensus was achieved. If Pigsonthewing, Steinsky or others disagree, they ought to say why here. Pigsonthewing's comments that he "changed the coordinates to a version which is better" is not a valid reason. Steinsky's reason that Captain scarlet is "reverting to an old template that is pretty much deprecated, and appears to be being phased out in general" is better, but "phased out in general" is not (I feel) a valid reason for removal if concensus is for a keep. Perhaps both sides could explain why they feel their template is better?  L.J.Skinner wot 23:27, 13 May 2007 (UTC)


 * If you're going to quote me, please do not do so out of context. I said, in response to the question "What advantage [do] microformats offers over coor title d": "I changed the coordinates to a version which is better, for the same reasons I gave the last time we discussed this." Perhaps you might now outline what benefits you think coor title d has over coord? Andy Mabbett 23:57, 13 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Your accusation of my quoting you out of context is truely laughable, particularly placed as it is in a paragraph where you have placed words into my mouth! Kindly re-read my above comment, and tell me where I have suggested that either format is superior or inferior.  I am trying to mediate a discussion here, and I have asked both sides to provide a valid reason why their choice of template ought to be used (none have so-far been forthcoming, and you have ignored that request in both your recent replies dated 23:57, 13 May 2007).  Maybe you could provide a link to the previous discussion which you have alluded to?
 * Everyone just needs to cool down. This SAME ARGUEMENT has happened far too many times, and to be brutal, I'm bloody sick of it.  Once a concensus is achieved on any one page, an edit war followed by slagging match breaks out on another, and it simply HAS TO STOP - we have all been behaving like little children, and we all need to grow up and show some civility.  Now, can any parties provide a valid reason why their choice of template is better, grounded in fact and not opinion, and preferably without resorting to attacking the other party or myself? (but hey, I'm a big boy and I can take it!)   L.J.Skinner wot 02:42, 14 May 2007 (UTC)


 * To sort one issue once and for all, your name is Pigsonthewing, it says so here so I'll continue calling you Pigsonthewing. Secondly the template is only deprecated in the eyes of some, certainly not mine. The goal is to have coordinates in the title of this article which coor title d does formidably without having to use microformats which are last time I checked, completely and utterly useless for what Wikipedia was designed to do: be read. There has been no discussion here about phasing out this excellent cordinates which I will continue using since it does the job. I am off course aware that Pigsonthewing wil never agree since his entire presenc ehere on wikipedia is to promote the damn thing... I am offering you, Pigsonthewing, a chance: of all the things I can do in this world, what will make you leave coor title d and coor title dms alone. It's a present, I'm giving it to you in simple terms. I'm sure there is something I can do for you, Pigsonthewing, that can convince you that you are wrong. It's 086é, I'll once again add the template back since it seems there is an error that duplicates coordinates in the article, quite messy and amateurish. The simpler the template, the better. Captain Scarlet and the Mysterons 07:54, 14 May 2007 (UTC)


 * " your name is Pigsonthewing, it says so here " - You;re not even replying to me, but I think I'm capable of knowing my own name; but in case anyone doubts that, the first line of content on the page you cite says "My name is Andy Mabbett." The rest of your post appears to be as useful as the quoted part. Andy Mabbett 17:43, 14 May 2007 (UTC)


 * "Your accusation of my quoting you out of context is truely (sic) laughable" - it might have been, were it not true. I have placed no "words on your mouth", and challenge you to prove your allegation that I have. Thank you for your admission that you have behaved like a child; but you do not speak for me when you make it. Andy Mabbett 17:47, 14 May 2007 (UTC)


 * For god's sake Pigsonthewing - it's right there! You asked me to prove what advantages one template has over another - I have never said either is better than the other, ergo, you are putting word into my mouth.  I am trying to achieve a stable article here.  What are your aims?  (childish rant ignored and attempt to inflame the situation and escalate conflict struck out - personal attacks have no place here.)   L.J.Skinner wot 21:33, 14 May 2007 (UTC)


 * 1) Your claim that silence equals concensus doesn't apply: people have spoken out against the old concensus.
 * 2) If you have a problem with template modernisation, a process that has gone through concensus building and the work of many editors, take it to the relevant template or policy discussions. Your reverts of Meersbrook and Tinsley Viaduct are childish and do not aid your cause. If the template is messy and amteurish anybody who cared about Wikipedia would be arguing on its talk page for improvements: revert waring on three articles really is pointless.
 * 3) In this particular article, the newer template also adds a map to the infobox -- additional funtionality beyond what yours provides.  Do you have a problem with that?  If so, perhaps you could explain properly instead of reverting without explanation in the edit summary.  Joe D (t) 08:15, 14 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I do not have a problem with "template modernisation", where have I suggested such? I am trying to stop edit wars and more infighting here by getting parties to discuss and not insult.
 * Incidentally, the map is misaligned - the coordinates are correct, but the pin is over a mile too far east, so currently at least, accuracy is sacrificed for "functionality".  L.J.Skinner wot 17:26, 14 May 2007 (UTC)


 * How boring this is going to be. First, the patronising part: neither you or Pigsonthewing WP:OWN these articles. Neither of you have justified your edits with an explaination other than with shut up Captain. Something I won't take lightly off course.
 * Explaination:


 * 1) I'm Captain Scarlet, not Lewisskinner, ask him.
 * 2) I have no interest in template wide policies, my interests lies with these articles alone. Other articles' authors can do whatever the hell they like on other articles using such templates, I'm not here to ruin their party. My cause is simply put on a plane of childness by you, I find it to be a very serious matter. Gobledigook.
 * 3) No need for duplicate template, put a map or the coordinates. I've explained it before, but just for you. No microformats, no duplication of information. My edit summaries are very explicit, since you believe they don't offer an explaination, neither do yours since I used yours and turned around. Perhaps you could explain properly instead of reverting without explanation in the edit summary. Anyway, I'll be abck in a day or two to make my point again, that'll give time for you to consider your apparent unexlained edition. Captain Scarlet and the Mysterons 08:42, 14 May 2007 (UTC)


 * No explanation? They are modernised templates, replacing the old versions project wide, as decided by discussion and collaboration.  They add functionality, such as the maps.  It is equally up to you to justify your reverts.  The only explanation you have offered is that they contain microformats, which you don't like, but that is an issue that should be taken up on the relevant template/policy discussions, not on individual articles.  The edit summary I was refering to was the "rm map" edit summary, which gave no justification of the actions.  However, since you bring them up, the edit summary of mine that you copypasted makes sense in the context that I used it, but not in the context you used it.  I'm not sure who you think called you Lewisskinner.  Joe D (t) 09:09, 14 May 2007 (UTC)


 * No explaination received from either you or Pigsonthewing, I'm still waiting; it's better type explaination go straight to the bin. The new templates have offer no advantages and have a strictly identical output when used on articles. The map is an idiotic feature that duplicates data, you don't want duplicate data do you? My edits are ALWAYS summaried. I have no interest and couldn't give a monkey's about other articles since I don't edit them, I don't barge on others work since I respect other editors' work and don't edit article I don't have a vested interest in. THIS article Pigsonthewing is war-reverting is the issue, discussions are to take place here and no where else. Since the trend is for democracy, I suggest Pigsonthewing leave ANI/RfC and WP pages and vote, here. It always boils down to this and Pigsonthewing will have to obey by it. By reverting the Tinsley Viaduct you have violated a concensus reached in which, as usual, Pigsonthewing was a minority opponent. It's it up to you and Pigsonthewing to adhere to that concensus: no rubbish microformats, duplicate information, it ain't broke, don't fix it. I have no hate against Pigsonthewing, I have an issue with his confrontational editorial manners. Problems arise where he wishes to impose something without discussing it before. fine, the clique's discussed it, now make your case here, if it's refuted, then you guys will have to live with the fact that Microformats and lower quality editing won't feature here. I haven't included an edit summary since it seems, since your last edit it is no longer deemed necessary. <b style="color:#000000;">Captain Scarlet</b> <i style="color:#FF0000;">and the Mysterons</i> 12:09, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I see that this has been reverted again, with no explanation other than the unhelpful edit summary "Undid revision by Steinsky Coordinates shambles". Andy Mabbett 15:24, 22 May 2007 (UTC)


 * That's a helpful explanation - he explained what he did. AS discussed elsewhere (so many elsewheres I cannot be bothered to mention them all) but coord and coor are fine, and it is down to a user's preference which to use.  When coord is google-compliant, we can have a bot change them over, assume both have the same functionality.  This seems a fair solution to me, what about you?   L.J.Skinner wot 17:00, 22 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree with Lewis. Let a bot do it when it is sorted. -- roundhouse 17:30, 22 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't see what any of the above - not least the unhelpful edit summary - has to do with the removal of a useful map. Andy Mabbett 18:10, 22 May 2007 (UTC)


 * It may be that the removal of the map was inadvertent. I'll see what the Mysterons think. -- roundhouse 19:30, 22 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I didn't think it was unhelpful, and I assume the same of Captain scarlet. And you are correct Pigsonthewing, that this is not the issue, so why are you going on about it?  We'll wait to hear about the map.   L.J.Skinner wot 14:25, 23 May 2007 (UTC)


 * If we look higher up the page, the good Capt expresses his dislike of duplication and says 'the map or coordinates', not both. So, together with his evident objections to coord, his edit is explained ... it is tiresome to go over the same ground, day by day, page by page. -- roundhouse 15:28, 23 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree - positively mind-numbing. I wish everyone would just stop, and that certain user would stop wading in repeatedly making WP:POINT-driven edits and accusing users of personal attacks, incivility or otherwise when they don't get their own way.  Oh, see also Sheffield City Hall history.   L.J.Skinner wot 15:39, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Sheffield Town Hall. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100715225051/http://www.sheffield.gov.uk/out--about/tourist-information/visitor-attractions/heritage/town-hall to http://www.sheffield.gov.uk/out--about/tourist-information/visitor-attractions/heritage/town-hall
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060117005513/http://www.sheffield.gov.uk/your-city-council/the-town-hall- to http://www.sheffield.gov.uk/your-city-council/the-town-hall-

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 22:19, 28 November 2017 (UTC)